1. Contempt petition for willful non-compliance of court order in civil appeals, where alleged contemnors failed to comply within prescribed time and offered only excuses. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ahsanuddin Amanullah, R. Mahadevan, JJ.
Israr Ahmad Khan – Petitioner
Versus
Amarnath Prasad & Ors. – Respondents
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 5 of 2026 In C.A. No. 7023 of 2025
And
Md. Hanif – Petitioner
Versus
Amarnath Prasad & Ors. – Respondents
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 6 of 2026 In C.A. No.7024 of 2025
Decided On : 24-02-2026
1. Contempt petition for willful non-compliance of court order in civil appeals, where alleged contemnors failed to comply within prescribed time and offered only excuses. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
2. Alleged contemnors argued administrative hurdles and pending review petition justified non-compliance; court held no excuse for delay and duty to comply first. (Para 3 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 10 , 11 , 12 )
3. Court grants last chance to alleged contemnors to comply within 15 days, failing which charges of contempt will be framed; substituted respondents served with notice. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 31 , 32 )
No. While no fetter can be placed on preferring a Review Petition, it was the duty of the alleged contemnors to first comply with the Order. Depending on the outcome, further steps could have been taken, but it was not open to them to not comply on the mere filing of a Review Petition. (Para 6 , 10 , 11 )
Yes. Any person or authority which is part of the chain, directly or indirectly, and required to cooperate in the compliance of the Order is duty-bound to act accordingly. Any such person or authority cannot raise a plea on the ground that it was not a party in the original proceedings. (Para 16 , 21 , 22 , 23 )
No. A defence of administrative hurdles or impossibility may not be open to an alleged contemnor if he or she has not moved the appropriate Court by recourse to appropriate proceedings in time, promptly and within the prescribed period of limitation, subject to condonation if and as applicable on sufficient cause being shown. (Para 10 , 11 , 26 )
Yes. The court deprecates such practices, noting that disobedient litigants act brazenly which brings down the authority and majesty of the Courts and the rule of law, and such conduct may border on criminal contempt. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 )
JUDGMENT :
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH & R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
PRELIMINARY:
After some arguments, at the outset, Mr. Shoeb Alam, learned senior counsel, sought permission to be discharged from the matter. Permission granted; the learned senior counsel is discharged from representing the alleged contemnors.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and the alleged contemnors, who are present-in-person before the Court, pursuant to our Order dated 16.01.2026, which reads as under:
‘Issue notice.
2. List on 24.02.2026.
3. If by that date the order of which non-compliance has been alleged is not fully complied and affidavit of compliance filed, the alleged contemnors no. 1 to 4 shall remain physically present in Court.’
(emphasis supplied)
THE CONTEMPT:
3. Though an Affidavit-in-Reply stands filed on behalf of the alleged contemnor No.4, but on a perusal therefrom, we find that only excuses seem to have been offered. The said Affidavit, inter alia, contends ‘…the answering respondent has taken several steps and efforts to try and comply with the order of this Hon’ble Court. However, due to exigent circumstances, compliance of the same has not taken place due to administrative hurdles and issues in implementation that have arisen.’ It goes on to state the background which led to the passing of the Order dated 20.05.2025, of which contempt is alleged herein, in Civil Appeals No.7023/2025 and 7024/2025. Further, it is averred that the Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest Produce Federation (hereinafter referred to as the ‘MD’) wrote a Letter dated 22.07.2025 to the concerned Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Government’) for ‘guidance in relation to compliance’ of the Order dated 22.05.2025. Be it noted, even this Letter dated 22.07.2025 was written after over 2 months of the 3 months’ time given had elapsed. The concerned Under Secretary to the Government vide Letter dated 30.07.2025 then sought certain information/documents from the MD. It is urged that the MD provided information as sought to the Government. The MD later, on 26.09.2025, sent a Letter to the Government as a reminder on the issue. On 03.10.2025, the Government wrote back to the MD asking if all legal options had been exhausted against the Order dated 20.05.2025.
4. Clearly, while time to comply with Order dated 20.05.2025 ran out on 20.08.2025 itself, the MD’s reminder Letter dated 26.09.2025 as also the Government’s Letter dated 03.10.2025 came much after. Indubitably, and prima facie, a clear case of contempt stands made out, including against individuals not party to the Order dated 20.05.2025. We shall deal with the legal implication of our finding so a little later.
5. Blissfully, the Affidavit makes no reference as to why no Miscellaneous Application was preferred in the main Civil Appeals seeking appropriate directions. Surely, if the difficulty was in implementing the Order dated 20.05.2025, instead of seeking a review, directions could have been sought for? Instead, a Review Petition [Diary No.57124/2025] was filed in October, 2025, as informed by learned counsel for the alleged contemnors. Defects therein, notified in November, 2025 are yet to be cured. As such, it is clear that there was no real intent on the part of the alleged contemnors and others in default of the Order dated 20.05.2025 to have the same either modified, clarified or reviewed. These facts speak for themselves. But then again, perhaps it is only us who are to be blamed. Giving parties an unduly long rope in the past has led us to this. Alas!
6. If only the story were to end there. The MD, by another Letter dated 06.10.2025, informed the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government that a Review Petition had been filed against the Order dated 20.05.2025, but ‘a proposal for approval of the creation of supernumerary post of Godown Keeper, in accordance with the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment dated 20.05.2025, is being prepared and submitt
AI
Failure to comply with court orders triggers contempt proceedings, regardless of any pending appeals against such orders or administrative hurdles.
Contempt - Appellant can be exonerated for contempt of court giving benefit of doubt as he tendered unconditional apologies sincerely for the delay in implementation of the order of the court with al....
The pendency of a writ appeal does not absolve the respondents from complying with the court's order, unless a stay of the order has been obtained from the appellate court.
Contempt of court requires willful disobedience of a court order; mere delay, especially under extenuating circumstances, does not constitute contempt.
Wilful disobedience, as an essential element of civil contempt, requires a high standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt and involves a mental element of intentional, conscious, and calculated condu....
The judgment emphasized the need for a clear case of wilful disobedience to the Court's order before exercising the jurisdiction to punish for contempt.
The court must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the contemnor has willfully, deliberately and intentionally violated the court's order. If the disobedience is the result of some compelling c....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top